The Rules of Shelving Books: Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Their Literary Friends

Reading Time

David Barnett of The Guardian had an interesting post about science fiction as a label and how certain authors of the more “literary” vein see science fiction in general. It was an interesting article that highlighted the three typical responses to science fiction by “literary” authors: it’s trashy pulp, it’s just a stupid label and all labels are pointless, and there’s nothing wrong with writing science fiction, because like anything else, it has its pulpy and more literary sides (which also translates to: if you don’t want to be known as a science fiction writer, then don’t use science fiction elements in your fiction). Much of what is written in the post isn’t really all that new; some of the authors we’ve heard from before (such as Margaret Atwood), and all that is being said is mostly a repeat or a rehash of an argument genre fans are all too familiar with.

But what interested me most about the post was Barnett’s questions about shelving science fiction and fantasy. Winterson, it seems, has some rather radical suggestions:

Is it feasible, as Jeanette Winterson seems to be suggesting, to do away with all categories on novels, and simply file them all in an A-Z of general fiction? It might conceivably give every novel a fighting chance, but would the reader who visits a shop or library looking for the latest crime, war or, indeed, science fiction novel really be well served by such a move?

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. The thing about book buyers is that they often like to sit within their comfort zones. Few people consciously read outside of their “comfort genres” (i.e. the genres they find most enjoyable, which the individual consumer is unlikely to break away from). So, while it might seem like a good idea to dispense with labels and have a big literature section with everything shoved into one place, doing so could be a real deterrent for the consumer. How exactly are they going to find the next big thing in science fiction or fantasy or crime or mystery or “literary” fiction? True, they might pick up a book by someone outside of their typical genres, but what if they do this repeatedly and end up getting so sick of the time and money wasted to find one good book that they give it up altogether? I think we have enough problems getting people to read these days that adding more to the consumptive load of the consumer could be detrimental to reading in general. Personally, I might stop shopping at a story that shelves things like this. I like to look at books, but I’m also unwilling to work my butt off to find something I might enjoy reading. While I do spend a lot of time in stores like Powell’s City of Books, it’s mainly because of its size (it has about 9 aisles of science fiction and fantasy, plus at least ten more aisles for YA, and a dozen or so other sections that I like to peruse). Quadruple the size and take away the labels and I imagine the store would lose it’s value for me.

But what about the problem of shelving books that are both “literary” and science fiction?

Are they right? If you want to buy Oryx and Crake or Stone Gods, should you head for the general fiction section in Waterstone’s or the science fiction and fantasy shelves?

Powell’s City of Books seems to have this question well addressed: they shelve books that are clearly of two literary veins in both places, allowing such books to be more easily found. For example: You can find novels by Karen Joy Fowler in both the SF/F and literature sections (specifically her novels with a more “fantastic” feel). Granted, Powell’s is a special kind of bookstore, but cross-pollinating books seems like a good way to draw readers in from seemingly separate genres.

If we were to come up with a handful of rules bookstores should follow for proper shelving, they would probably be the following:

  • Keep all the labels (science fiction, general fiction, fantasy, mystery, etc.).
  • Shelve books that cross genres in multiple places so as to properly cross-pollinate works that cannot be so easily fixed into the narrowed categories we are familiar with.
  • Don’t fall into the ridiculous trap of “quality” that is often argued by “literary” folks. A book with a spaceship is probably just as fantasy as it is “literary.” Selling books is important for any author.
  • Offer recommendations (either in the form of “we recommend this book” or “if you like A, you might like B”).
  • If possible, have knowledgeable staff in certain genres (optional).

Those rules seem like good ones to follow to me. But what do you all think? Obviously not all bookstores can do this; size is a factor. But a lot of them could follow Powell’s example and help drive people out of their comfort zones enough to pursue authors they might never have found because they weren’t labeled a certain thing. In any case, if you have an opinion, let me know in the comments section!

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Digg
Reddit
LinkedIn

2 Responses

  1. Great Read.

    I think there are two fundamental reasons people go to the book store.

    1. Buy a specific book
    2. Browse for a new read

    If you are looking for a specific book it can be hard to find a book that is cross-genre, I prefer Amazon for specific books.

    For 2, it works much better to separate by subject matter or genre so you can scan the shelves for something that catches your eye.

    More than anything I think having knowledgable people available is the best way to do it. Humans have the ability to come up with recommendations that categorical separation can't.

    yetistomper.blogspot.com

  2. Patrick: Thanks for stopping by. Those seem like good motivations for most buyers. Probably a couple of others that fit into the cracks, though.

Leave a Reply

Follow Me

Newsletter

Support Me

Recent Posts

A Reading List of Dystopian Fiction and Relevant Texts (Apropos of Nothing in Particular)

Why would someone make a list of important and interesting works of dystopian fiction? Or a suggested reading list of works that are relevant to those dystopian works? There is absolutely no reason other than raw interest. There’s nothing going on to compel this. There is nothing in particular one making such a list would hope you’d learn. The lists below are not an exhaustive list. There are bound to be texts I have forgotten or texts you think folks should read that are not listed. Feel free to make your own list and tell me about it OR leave a comment. I’ll add things I’ve missed! Anywhoodles. Here goes:

Read More »

Duke’s Best EDM Tracks of 2024

And so it came to pass that I finished up my annual Best of EDM [Insert Year Here] lists. I used to do these on Spotify before switching to Tidal, and I continued doing them on Tidal because I listen to an absurd amount of EDM and like keeping track of the tunes I love the most. Below, you will find a Tidal playlist that should be public. You can listen to the first 50 tracks right here, but the full playlist is available on Tidal proper (which has a free version just like Spotify does). For whatever reason, the embedded playlist breaks the page, and so I’ve opted to link to it here and at the bottom of this post. Embeds are weird. Or you can pull songs into your preferred listening app. It’s up to you. Some caveats before we begin:

Read More »

2025: The Year of Something

We’re nine days into 2025, and it’s already full of exhausting levels of controversy before we’ve even had a turnover in power in my home country of the United States. We’ve seen resignations of world leaders, wars continuing and getting worse and worse (you know where), the owner of Twitter continuing his tirade of lunacy and demonstrating why the billionaire class is not to be revered, California ablaze with a horrendous and large wildfire, right wing thinktanks developing plans to out and attack Wikipedia editors as any fascist-friendly organization would do, Meta rolling out and rolling back GenAI profiles on its platforms, and, just yesterday, the same Meta announcing sweeping changes to its moderation policies that, in a charitable reading, encourage hate-based harassment and abuse of vulnerable populations, promotion and support for disinformation, and other problems, all of which are so profound that people are talking about a mass exodus from the platform to…somewhere. It’s that last thing that brings me back to the blog today. Since the takeover at Twitter, social networks have been in a state of chaos. Platforms have risen and fallen — or only risen so much — and nothing I would call stability has formed. Years ago, I (and many others far more popular than me) remarked that we’ve ceded the territory of self-owned or small-scale third party spaces for massive third party platforms where we have minimal to no control or say and which can be stripped away in a tech-scale heartbeat. By putting all our ducks into a bin of unstable chaos, we’re also expending our time and energy on something that won’t last, requiring us to expend more time and energy finding alternatives, rebuilding communities, and then repeating the process again. In the present environment, that’s impossible to ignore.1 This is all rather reductive, but this post is not the place to talk about all the ways that social networks have impacted control over our own spaces and narratives. Another time, perhaps. I similarly don’t have space to talk about the fact that some of the platforms we currently have, however functional they may be, have placed many of us in a moral quagmire, as in the case of Meta’s recent moderation changes. Another time… ↩

Read More »